MANDATE
Case: Case12-547 3:11-cv-01990-VLB Document: 58 Document Page:39 1 Filed 07/26/2012 07/26/12 Page 674828 1 of 2 2
MANDATE
D. Conn. 11-cv-132 Thompson, C.J. D. Conn. 11-cv-1990 Bryant, J.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of May, two thousand twelve. Present: Robert D. Sack, Reena Raggi, Circuit Judges, John G. Koeltl,* District Judge. In re Sylvester Traylor,
12-547-op Petitioner.
In re Sylvester Traylor,
12-672-op Petitioner.
Sylvester Traylor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
12-881-cv
Bassam Awwa, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. Halloran & Sage LLP, et al., Defendants.
*
Judge John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
MANDATE ISSUED ON 07/26/2012
Case: Case12-547 3:11-cv-01990-VLB Document: 58 Document Page:39 2 Filed 07/26/2012 07/26/12 Page 674828 2 of 2 2
The above-captioned cases are hereby CONSOLIDATED for purposes of this order. In No. 12-547-op, Sylvester Traylor has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing state court judges and state legislators to take certain actions in connection with a number of state statutes, and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for declaratory and injunctive relief. In No. 12672-op, Traylor has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Connecticut and its courts to cease application of certain state statutes, and moves: (1) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) for a notice of removal and trial de novo; (3) for declaratory and injunctive relief; and (4) “for admission,” which this Court construes as a request to supplement the record on appeal and for the Court to impose sanctions. In No. 12-881-cv, Traylor moves for this Court to take judicial notice of certain matters and several Appellees move to dismiss the appeal. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the appeal in No. 12-881-cv is CONSTRUED as a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the state courts to enforce certain discovery orders issued by a state court judge, and as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It is further ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED in all three cases for the limited purpose of filing the mandamus petitions, and that the three mandamus petitions are DISMISSED for lack of mandamus jurisdiction, as this Court does not have the authority “to compel action by state officials,” Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988); see also All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C § 1651(a) (“[Federal courts] may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.”), or to decide claims in the first instance, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. Finally, it is ORDERED that the other pending motions in the above-captioned cases are DENIED as moot. Traylor is hereby warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or frivolous appeals, mandamus petitions, or motions may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a leave-to-file sanction requiring Traylor to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing further submissions in this Court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir. 1993); Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 10–11 (2d Cir. 1989). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
2
MANDATE
D. Conn. 11-cv-132 Thompson, C.J. D. Conn. 11-cv-1990 Bryant, J.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of May, two thousand twelve. Present: Robert D. Sack, Reena Raggi, Circuit Judges, John G. Koeltl,* District Judge. In re Sylvester Traylor,
12-547-op Petitioner.
In re Sylvester Traylor,
12-672-op Petitioner.
Sylvester Traylor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
12-881-cv
Bassam Awwa, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. Halloran & Sage LLP, et al., Defendants.
*
Judge John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
MANDATE ISSUED ON 07/26/2012
Case: Case12-547 3:11-cv-01990-VLB Document: 58 Document Page:39 2 Filed 07/26/2012 07/26/12 Page 674828 2 of 2 2
The above-captioned cases are hereby CONSOLIDATED for purposes of this order. In No. 12-547-op, Sylvester Traylor has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing state court judges and state legislators to take certain actions in connection with a number of state statutes, and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for declaratory and injunctive relief. In No. 12672-op, Traylor has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Connecticut and its courts to cease application of certain state statutes, and moves: (1) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) for a notice of removal and trial de novo; (3) for declaratory and injunctive relief; and (4) “for admission,” which this Court construes as a request to supplement the record on appeal and for the Court to impose sanctions. In No. 12-881-cv, Traylor moves for this Court to take judicial notice of certain matters and several Appellees move to dismiss the appeal. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the appeal in No. 12-881-cv is CONSTRUED as a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the state courts to enforce certain discovery orders issued by a state court judge, and as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It is further ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED in all three cases for the limited purpose of filing the mandamus petitions, and that the three mandamus petitions are DISMISSED for lack of mandamus jurisdiction, as this Court does not have the authority “to compel action by state officials,” Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988); see also All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C § 1651(a) (“[Federal courts] may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.”), or to decide claims in the first instance, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. Finally, it is ORDERED that the other pending motions in the above-captioned cases are DENIED as moot. Traylor is hereby warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or frivolous appeals, mandamus petitions, or motions may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a leave-to-file sanction requiring Traylor to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing further submissions in this Court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir. 1993); Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 10–11 (2d Cir. 1989). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
2
